Rajinder Kaur alias Harjinder Kaur vs Boota Singh and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.

CM No. 7522.CII of 2013

For reasons mentioned in the application which is accompanied by affidavit, delay of 27 days in refiling the revision petition is condoned. The

application stands allowed accordingly.

CM No. 7523.CII of 2013

Allowed as prayed for. Annexures P/1 to P/11 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

CR No. 2026 of 2013

Rajinder Kaur alias Harjinder Kaur has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated

10.2.2012 Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barnala thereby dismissing application Annexure P/2 filed by the petitioner

for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree of divorce dated 14.6.1985 Annexure P/11 passed against her in petition filed by her husband

Dalbara Singh since deceased.

The petitioner alleged that she was not served in the divorce petition and even her correct address was not mentioned in the divorce petition.

She learnt of the ex parte judgment and decree after the death of her husband when she moved the Army authorities claiming family pension and

other service benefits of her husband and the Army authorities replied that petitioner''s marriage with Dalbara Singh already stood dissolved.

Dalbara Singh had died on 11.10.2010. Application Annexure P/2 is dated 22.9.2011 and appears to have been filed on 29.9.2011 as per

impugned order. Respondents are son and daughters of Dalbara Singh since deceased.

The application was contested by the respondents who denied the averments of the petitioner.

Learned matrimonial court vide order Annexure P/1 has dismissed application Annexure P/2 filed by the petitioner who has, therefore, filed this

revision petition to challenge the said order.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

At the outset, it has to be noticed that application Annexure P/2 was apparently filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC (in short, CPC) as also

specifically pleaded in the present revision petition. Consequently, impugned order Annexure P/1 dismissing the said application is appealable

under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC. Consequently, the instant revision petition is not maintainable.

Reason for filing this revision petition instead of filing appeal is not far to seek. Revision petition has been filed on 21.12.2012 whereas impugned

order is dated 10.2.2012. This revision petition has been filed more than 10 months after the passing of the impugned order. Preparation of

certified copy of the impugned order had taken just one day as application for copy was filed on 30.11.2012 and the copy was prepared on

1.12.2012. Consequently, limitation period for filing appeal against impugned order had expired long before the filing of the instant revision petition.

Consequently, petitioner cleverly filed this revision petition instead of filing appeal against the impugned order. Moreover, even the instant revision

petition is barred by delay and laches. It is correct that no limitation period has been prescribed for filing revision petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India. Nevertheless, even such a revision petition has to be filed within reasonable period. What would be the reasonable period for

filing revision petition may depend on facts and circumstances of each case, but broadly speaking, period of 90 days prescribed for filing revision

petition u/s 115 CPC may also be taken to be the reasonable period for filing revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, with

some variation, if necessary, in facts and circumstances of any particular case. In the instant case, the revision petition filed more than 10 months

after the passing of the impugned order is patently barred by delay and laches.

There is also no ground much less sufficient ground for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree because it has not been proved that the

petitioner was not duly served in the divorce petition. Ex parte judgment Annexure P/11 reveals that the petitioner did not appear in the divorce

petition despite service. The petitioner has not led any evidence from the file of the divorce petition to depict that she was not served in the said

case. Consequently, there is no ground for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree.

In the aforesaid circumstances, application Annexure P/2 filed by the petitioner was also hopelessly barred by limitation. The said application

was filed more than 26 years after passing of the ex parte judgment and decree. Limitation period for filing the said application is 30 days from the

date of passing of ex parte judgment and decree because the petitioner was duly served in the divorce petition. Consequently, the application was

hopelessly barred by limitation. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the

matrimonial court warranting interference by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The

revision petition is completely meritless and frivolous and is accordingly dismissed in limine.